"The reason why I think it's important to examine race *as well* as other factors is because it's imperative to understand how economic oppression is intersected by other structural forms of oppression. Yes, your experience of oppression is different depending on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class location, educational status, and so forth."
I agree of course. It is important to examine ...
But that focus (on wjat ot os o,[prtamt tp exa,ome) leaves out what seems to be the genre of the text which we have been discussing. (I am simply unable to do much with web sites; as soon as I I expand the text to readable size for me, the whole page becomes a total mess. Hence I may be wrong myself here.)
It is an agitational text, aimed at a particular readership, which it aims to mobilize. And it correctly names what must be (in an older terminology) the principles of unity of the movement it aims at building. It is, in this context, irrelevant whether the state of California is in fiscal difficulties. It is the task of the state government to remedy that; it is the task of a popular movement to make it difficult to govern until that problem is handled.
Now it is quite possible that the organizers will fail to ignite such a movement, but the great majority of such efforts over the last two centuries have failed, but a few have succeeded ONLY because so many have been attempted. Surely, the most important political act of the last two centuries was the Paris Commune -- a miserable failure that never had a chance.
The "theory" needed here is not fiscal theory or electoral theory or ... but the theory of mass mobilizations and how they work and do not work, of what kind of demands they make and what kind they do not make.
Carrol